Reason to be grateful Obama appointed gay porn-purveyor Jennings as Safe Schools Czar

No, my post title does not mean I’ve gone off my rocker and started supporting Kevin Jennings in his role as Safe Schools Czar. Thanks to Terresa Monroe’s hard work, I’ve known for months exactly what kind of person Kevin Jennings, the “Safe School Czar” is. He’s a career gay man who is devoted to ensuring that children as young as five or six are exposed to a steady stream of sexual information that may help them get in contact with their homosexual side. Nor is this merely an academic interest. As Zombie documented, Jennings has very close ties to NAMBLA, an organization that actively works to legalize pedophilia (see here, here and here for the results of Zombie’s working tying Jennings to NAMBLA and its leaders).

The latest hit against Jennings is a report at Gateway Pundit. This report details the way in which Jennings’ gay/education/political activism group, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), actively pushes schools to include in their reading lists extremely sexually explicit books aimed at kids in the 7th through 12th grades. And when I say sexually explicit, I’m not talking about coy allusions to hand-holding, kissing and warm fuzzy feelings. Gateway Pundit carefully documents precisely the kind of material Jennings’ organization wants your children to read. It is graphic. No child — gay, straight, confused, whatever — should be reading this kind of material. The listed books include pornographic pictures, descriptions of sado-masochistic acts, graphic descriptions of sexual acts, etc.

Nor is Jennings’ relationship to this group tenuous: as Gateway Pundit says:

GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).

Given what a foul swamp Jennings crawled out of to join the Obama administration, why in the world am I saying that I’m grateful to Obama for his appointment? Easy. Before Jennings hit the big time, we — meaning parents and concerned citizens — didn’t have any idea what was going on. We thought that the politically correct aspects of the gay rights movement, insofar as they intersected with education, simply meant assuring that gay kids don’t get abused or bullied at school. That’s a goal that I think all civilized people believe to be good. Sure, there were the books about gay penguins and two mommies, and we weren’t thrilled about them, but even those were painted in warm, fuzzy pastels, aimed at assuring us that it was all about making sure that gay children weren’t ostracized and abused in the “lord of the flies” atmosphere that prevails in so many schools.

Jennings’ appointment, however, has exposed us to the fact that there is a loud, active subset of gay activists who are not concerned simply with ensuring that young boys and girls are safe, but that instead genuinely wants to expose all children to explicit gay sexual activity. Certainly that’s what the GLSEN reading list indicates to be the case. The existence of this material leads to the next question, which is why these activists want children to be primed as fully sexualized gay actors? Well, Jennings’ involvement with NAMBLA, and NAMBLA activists leads to the logical answer: pedophiles are using our school system to groom children as their sexual partners.

Without Obama’s idiotic decision to appoint a grooming pedophile as his Safe Schools Czar, all of this stuff would have continued to work under the radar. It takes the type of prominence Obama gave Jennings to expose the rot in our educational system. And that’s why we should be very grateful to Obama for appointing Jennings as the czar. Had he not done so, it’s entirely reasonable to believe that no one — and certainly not a critical mass of parents and observers — would have cared about or noticed what was going on. To take myself as an example, I know that I don’t have the time to vet every single book on my children’s reading lists. There are dozens, even hundreds, of them. I can only hope that the common sense and morality I’ve already inculcated into my children helps armor them against these intellectual and psychic insults.

In a bizarre way, Obama is working out well as a president. Yes, he’s the first leader in the history of the world intentionally to denigrate and degrade his own nation’s standing. Yes, he may be the scourge of the military and national security. And yes, he may be trying to bankrupt our economy. But he’s also doing something incredibly important: he’s ripping the smiley-faced mask the left has worn since the Civil Rights movement.

In the 40 odd years since the Left coopted the Civil Rights movement, it has managed to convince Americans that conservatives are evil, narrow-minded, racist, sexist, homophobic crucifix-clutching, oppressors, intent on reinstating a repressive, sharia-like world. Leftists have simultaneously presented themselves as the good guys, concerned only for the well-being of every oppressed person in the world.

What we’re seeing, though, now that the mask is going, going, gone, is the fact that some people deserve to be oppressed: pedophiles; radical Islamists who hate women, gays, Jews and Christians; racial grievance mongers who want to keep blacks permanently latched to the government teat; socialists who would rather see everyone suffer under a bad medical system, than allow anyone to benefit under a good one. And the lists goes on. Without any restraints, Obama’s hubris, and the hubris of those who surround him, has exposed the noxious cancer lying at the heart of Leftism: it advances totalitarian deviance at the expense of the decent, free norm.

(Usual disclaimer here: I am not homophobic. I am opposed, however, to a gay political agenda, exemplified by Kevin Jennings’ career, that seeks to sexualize our youth, and to make private bedroom behavior an overarching social and political concern that strikes at the central pillars of a stable culture.)

Share this:

Like this:

I read this on Gateway Pundit earlier this afternoon – couldn’t get through more than the first 3 examples. Those pieces of “literature” (God help us!) are the most foul, disgusting things I have ever read. I just couldn’t read more.
What I want to know is this: All of these gay parents who have assured us over and over that they are “just like” parents everywhere who put their kids first – are THEY ok with their children being exposed to ideas that can only bring their children harm??
Shouldn’t homosexual parents be particularly alarmed at the idea of 10 year old boys having sex with adult men? What about the concept of child abuse? Do they honestly believe a 10 year old is going to insist on using “safe sex techniques” when being pressured to having sex by an older man???
If the gay and lesbian communities do not stand up and demand that this be stopped and stopped now, they will never have another single legitimate argument to make. Their cause will be done for.

As Deana did, you should go to the Gateway Pundit story and see how much you’ll be able to read.
As a gay guy who experimented around some in 1992-94, and I’ve seen and read my share of all kinds of straight and gay pornography, I have some knowledge of this. I have never encountered anything as chilling as those excerpts posted there. This is grooming young teenagers for sex. The volume of it is incredible, and the variety seems deliberately chosen to ensure that anything and everything will be thought to be OK.

You have to remember that Jennings has close associations with NAMBLA people, who advocate politically for the legalization of man-boy sex. And they certainly think it’s OK, of course. There is plenty in that mix of stories about sex between men and boys. It’s all deliberate. You will be shocked, and you should be.

I have no idea how this Jennings guy passed a background check. There is no possible excuse for how those books were put on a reading list for 7th-12th graders while he was in charge of that list. He’s responsible. He must be fired from his position as “Safe Schools Czar” (!!!!) immediately.

Who ARE all these people in this Obama administration? It’s a wasps nest of total freaks.

I especially appreciate your comment, Mike, because you make it very clear that this is not about gays versus straights: it’s about people who want to protect children versus people who want to abuse them — and Obama’s “Safe Schools” Czar falls into the latter category. He is using the political cover of gay victimhood to turn children, especially boys, but also girls, into ready-made sex toys for pedophiles. This is horrific, and needs to be addressed as a children’s issue, not a gay issue.

suek

>>I have no idea how this Jennings guy passed a background check.>>
No problem, Mike, if the background checkers don’t consider this to be a problem.

Book, I do not consider myself a homophobe, either, but I do believe that homosexuality is an aberration. Sex exists for a single purpose, to propagate the species. God had the insight to make it pleasurable so we wouldn’t die out, I guess… I seem to remember that the general consensus way back in the 60’s was that homosexual behavior was a perversion and could be cured. I still consider that the truth. In the 70’s, some mental health “professionals” decided that it was “normal” and that we should just live and let live and not interfere with their “lifestyle”. Didn’t the mental health profession recently issue a “whoops” and retract their statement of normalcy from 40 years ago? Didn’t hear about that? Hmmm. wonder who controls the media. Homosexuals, like so many on the left, have turned their victimhood into an asset to generate massive amounts of guilt or fear of being politically incorrect. I believe we should eliminate the term “gay” from the vernacular and return to calling them homosexuals. We should help them find Christ and set their lives straight (literally!).

I have to respectfully disagree with you there, ConnectTheDots. I believe that homosexuality can be tied to both biology and culture. That is, I believe that there are infants who get a hormone wash in the womb that changes their sexuality. Because I believe in a genetic, or at last biological, component to homosexuality, I believe gays exist with the rest of us as part of God’s — or Nature’s — grand plan.

Nevertheless, as I’ve often stated here I have a few other beliefs, too. I believe that heterosexuality is normative (which is certainly statistically true). I believe that a country needs strong traditional nuclear families in order to survive and prosper. I believe that the gay lifestyle, for reasons unclear, lends itself to destructive behaviors, separate from promiscuity: more alcoholism, more drug abuse, more partner abuse, more suicide.

Biology aside, I also believe, that humans are malleable, and that sexuality can be shaped, as can so many other things.

Because I believe in nuclear families, and because I believe that homosexuality carries risks with it, and because I believe humans are malleable, I do not want schools to be used as places to shape children’s sexuality towards homosexuality. I say this without malice or phobia. I just think it’s safer to be straight, and I want that for my children. However, because I believe in biological homosexuality, I want the schools to be safe places for those children who got a different hormone treatment in utero.

socratease

<blockquote>This report details the way in which Jennings’ gay/education/political activism group, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), actively pushes schools to include in their reading lists extremely sexually explicit books aimed at kids in the 7th through 12th grades. </blockquote>
This is how gays reproduce.

Deana

Mike:

This is the problem as I see it (and yes, I understand there are many problems with this whole sordid affair but this is the core problem):

There are many people out there who feel very uncomfortable with homosexuality. Some people are quite harsh in their disapproval – others, like myself, believe from a religious and personal perspective that homosexuality is a sin but do not want to live in a country where gays can be denied their civil rights, jobs or promotions, fair lending, and other things that make life in America enjoyable and free. I don’t want anyone persecuted because of their homosexual status.

But after reading the post on Gateway Pundit, I no longer have any doubt that a very powerful portion of homosexuals in this country are after the children. They are pushing sex and adult behavior on children who are too young to understand what is at stake, the danger they are putting themselves in. They haven’t had the time to develop a framework to understand what they are seeing or experiencing. Some of these really little ones shouldn’t even KNOW about sex!!!

So, after years of assuring us that they simply want to be free to choose to live their lives the way they see fit, they have now made it impossible for the rest of us to keep our children free from this sick behavior (and please, let me be clear, here: I’m not talking about two adult men engaging in homosexual behavior). It is virtually impossible to keep children away from these influences – they are INTENTIONALLY coming after the children – not just their own, mind you, but everyone else’s. They now have the freedom to live however they want, say and behave however they want, and tell everyone, including children who are not their own, whatever they want, and we can’t say anything because if we do, we are bigots. Homophobes.

I’m sorry. I know I’m on a rant but there are times when I feel like we are living in Sodom and Gomorrah. Yes, I’m a Christian but I’m not really that devout of a Christian. It’s just that this stuff is just sick. It’s wrong. I feel like our society is hitting bottom and then starting to dig. I realize that many of the problems in our society have nothing at all to do with homosexuals but this particular episode we are discussing here is particularly offensive.

I keep thinking of the Bible verse in Matthew (Matthew 18:6) that says: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

We are messing around here with children. There will be consequences. Why do so few homosexuals seem to not understand this?

Deana

SADIE

“In the 40 odd years since the Left coopted the Civil Rights movement…..”
That sums it up for me. They’ve upped the anti and have gone from odd to bizarre to off the wall, down the tubes and into the sewers.

Mike Devx

I guess I’d better follow up on my earlier post, since this has turned somewhat into a debate on homosexuality itself, and when you say just a little, we tend to fill in the blanks with our own beliefs and apply those beliefs to that person. Every so often this topic bubbles up, and occasionally I feel compelled to add in a few words on the wider debate so peoples’ preconceptions don’t automatically apply to me.

My main thought is to separate the ACT of homosexuality from the fact of BEING gay. There are plenty of completely straight guys in prison engaging in homosexual acts. A homosexual act is not a gay act, though it sure looks like one. Sometimes teenagers will briefly experiment out of confusion or uncertainty as they try to figure out this new raging stew of hormones in their system. (They don’t seem to care whether they experiment with girls, other boys, a mattress, or even farm animals, and it doesn’t mean anything about their sexual psychology – as long as they quickly abandon the experimentation.)

Is homosexuality itself – not the act, but the sexual psychology – normal? Book thinks it is. My answer is: I don’t know. I don’t find the evidence either way compelling enough to be certain. There are signs of it throughout mammalian species. It’s rare, so it’s clearly not normative. It may be normal but rarely arising; it may be abnormal but genetic; it may be aberrant psychologically and triggered by some event while growing up. I don’t find anything I’ve read conclusive.

Being whatever you are isn’t a choice. Engaging in sex, of any sort, IS. I have little patience for those who say they can’t control their own behavior, be it sexual or otherwise. I’ve had no trouble since that experimentation period in 1992-94 remaining celibate. The homosexual ACT has no natural purpose, whereas heterosexual sex has the natural purpose of procreation. Yet heterosexuals who are not procreating still have sex, including a wide variety of actions that have nothing to do with procreation itself. They’re simply surrounding the procreative act with a lot of physical pleasure.

I don’t see how anyone can say that homosexuality itself is a moral perversion. I can see how you can believe that the homosexual ACT is a moral perversion. We’re all free to believe what we believe, and we always do pass laws that enforce those beliefs. If you’re certain in your heart that homosexuality is aberrant, then by all means you’re correct to try to get laws passed against it; I’d just hope that people would distinguish between the act and the nature, soberly consider any evidence in either direction, and choose their laws carefully.

Either way, my belief has always been: Leave the children alone! On this subject, the schools should let kids be kids. Let the parents instruct them, and let them make up their own minds as adults. The far-left crowd has been brainwashing the kids in many, many ways in government schools on various far-left agendas, not just on homosexuality. When they limit it to tolerance, most people tend to not get angry. But when they do what this Kevin Jennings does, people are rightly furious. There is absolutely no excuse for it. Tammy Bruce – like me and Book and others, a refugee from liberalism – has stated that the far-left seeks to hypersexualize your children because they NEED their own sexuality distortions normalized – and the way of the left has always been to change society by brainwashing the children to whatever view they want normalized. That’s where I hope the fight remains – to resist in every way the far-left’s attempts to condition your children in ways you despise, whatever they are.

I’m personally glad most people don’t want to punish me simply for BEING gay. What you want to do about the ACTIONS of homosexual sex is up to you. But if you were to punish gay people for those actions, and not straight people, I have not one ounce of admiration for you. Biblically, the ACT of “men lying with men” is considered the perversion, not the thought nor the psychology, but the ACTION. That’s true of your straight people, be they straight guys in jail expressing power over each other or of adults’ experimentation in this anything-goes culture. The thing I hope of people, is I hope that at a minimum, people keep that in mind, to keep the act, and its consequences, separate from the condition.

So that’s my say, for this year’s occasional post on this topic, at least. Just so everyone knows where I stand aside from the preconceptions we all have, which I’d rather not have applied to me.

Friend of USA

Some of us have said it before and I will say it again;History will not remember Obama because he was the first black president but because he was one of the worse president in USA’s history.
(The fact he was black will be a foot note such as the fact some presidents were left handed.)

Obama and his shady/disreputable friends want to change the USA into something WEAKER.
That is what he meant by ” CHANGE!” and ” Yes we can! ” = make the USA weaker.
Apointing a weirdo-homosexual-pedophile as safety school csar is a good example of how to make the USA weaker.
When orgies became more important than anything else to the Romans, Rome became so weak that it fell.
as I understand it, the new safety school czar is very much pro-orgy.
connect the dots and let’s talk again in 2012 or – God forbid*-2016…
* I am an agnostic but the expression fits better than anything I can think of.

Deana

Mike –

Thank you for taking the time to respond at length to some of the issues brought up in this post. I do appreciate your insight.

For me, I do not care much about the distinction between the act of homosexuality and the psychology of it, not because I don’t recognize that there is a difference (there is), but because if two adults choose to engage in sexual activity in privacy, I really don’t care. People are free to do as they wish, so long as it does not harm anyone else.

I also do not care whether homosexuality is aberrant or not. Again, so long as it is between two consenting adults in private, I don’t have a right to dictate what they want to do. For that reason, I would never support the passing of laws that would govern these private acts. The laws would be useless, unenforceable, and contrary to our beliefin man being free.

The issue here is not about homosexuality or homosexual acts but the fact that so many homosexuals are spending an awful lot of time, money and energy to go after children (again, not just their own, but everyone else’s) and they are doing it in ways that make it impossible for parents to control. This is not an accident. With the occasional exception (such as Tammy Bruce), there are almost no homosexuals/lesbians with a public voice who are standing up and saying that this is unacceptable. As you so correctly point out, the far left (and I would argue, significant portions of the middle left) want to hypersexualize children (and everyone else, for that matter).

If all this was about was the right for people to publish books that are this graphic, I would be disgusted (and would say so) but because I value the right of people to write what they want, it would be no big deal. But this is about so much more. This is being shoved in our faces and when we protest, we are considered intolerant.

As I said earlier, if the homosexual community does not come out strongly on this issue, they are going to lose credibility. I will no longer give much credence to their claims of discrimination and status as second class citizens given their apparent comfort with advocating raw, dangerous sex (not to mention pedophilia) to young children. Please understand: I don’t expect the vast majority of homosexuals to write their representatives, contact news organizations, and demand that Obama fire Jennings under the laughable pretext that he had “no idea” Jennings was involved in promoting these ideas to the nation’s children. I just want to see leaders of various homosexual/lesbian groups on TV saying that this is not ok, that they are working to get this corrected, and that they value protecting children. I need to believe that the homosexual community is against this.

Deana

suek

Mike…
You discriminate – rightly, I think – between the condition of homosexuality and the act of homosexuality. We also need to discriminate between the “normal” of society and the “normal” of the individual. Homosexuality, as you point out, is abnormal in nature, by definition. That is, homosexuals are in the far left little leg of the Bell curve that defines the norm. But for the individual, normal is what that individual is. For the deaf person, not being able to hear is “normal” – but not for everyone else. I think this differentiation is necessary because of the stigma attached to being “not normal”, and because many homosexuals take deep offense at being considered “not normal”, since they are what they are and don’t want to be considered abnormal. There’s a “wrongness” attached to abnormal that they reject – and they _must_ reject it because not to reject it means that they have to accept themselves as abnormal. And who wants to do that??

Personally, I don’t really have an opinion of the condition of homosexuality. I reject the idea that it’s genetic, but it may well be biological. If that’s true, then it has something to do with the prenatal condition. Given the high use of contraceptives that are hormonal doses, and given the fact that female hormones have been found to be of unexpected levels in the ground waters in England (that’s where the report I read originated), and given the common use of contraceptives by women in the last 50 years, I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t a factor.
Along the same lines, I think back to when I was a child, and virtually every couple had children. The few couples who did not were pitied, and people whispered behind their backs about “those poor people” and “I wonder what’s wrong with them”. Fast forward to today and you have clinics and clinics to help couples overcome sterility. I have no numbers, and don’t know of any studies, but it seems that there has been a tremendous decrease in fertility levels over the last 50 years – which coincides with the use of hormonal contraceptives. The huge increase in homosexuals seems to parallel the fertility problem. Could they both be linked to use of contraceptives? I do wonder.

Of course, both problems could be also linked to sexual promiscuity. Early homosexual experiences _could_ be formative for a young male, and frequent sexual partners _could_ cause infections that result in infertility in women. In any case, the sex drive is normal, but satisfying it without restriction is a cause of societal problems, which is why – I think – every society has developed some sort of rules about it within that society.

One of those funny little things in life – when I was younger, religion was considered to be the way women kept men from “misbehaving” and under control. These days, learning more about the middle east, islam and Judaism, it’s clear to me that the men had all the power, and it was men controlling the behavior of other men that was the origin of the sexual restrictions. The idea that women of 2000 years ago could make the rules is just ludicrous.

The real problem lies not in the use of sexuality, but in the self indulgence. Self indulgence is self destructive. It lowers us to the level of animals. If we’re “just” animals, then it becomes a matter of might makes right – in all things.

Deana

Friend of USA –

You are spot on. No one is going to care that Obama was black when this is all said and done. It will be the most irrelevant fact compared to the long series of sorrowful facts that will explain the shape we are going to be in.

Deana

BrianE

While this sordid affair is in the context of homosexuality, I agree with BW that the outrage should focus on the effort to sexualize children at younger and younger ages. I was so outraged when I went over and read some of the links. On the face of it, some of it is just preposterous– a lurid fantasy from the mind of some sick person, but it does have a corrosive effect. The question in my mind- where are the proper limits that society can place on itself to protect children. What corrosive effect does Calvin Klein ads have on children? When the Rolling Stones song “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” became background music in America’s malls, it became apparent that Americans were accepting a sexualization healthy for no one. While this may seem trivial given that most people don’t know what the lyrics are, it certainly points to a new level of lowered expectations. The comments over at Patterico had the usual suspects defending this trash, pointing out that there was a disclaimer on GLSEN’s website advising the content “some content for adolescents may contain mature themes”. This may represent the single most disingenuous statement in the history of mankind! No doubt Kevin Jennings will be toast. But that doesn’t resolve the issue. The left sees the destruction of the family as essential to their vision of the perfect society. This is just one more brick (although a fairly large one) paving the path to that new way. Just like same sex marriage is being used by the left to destroy marriage in the greater society, the left uses hyper sexualization for the same ends. The family unit continues to be under greater and greater attack. Mike’s comments are hopeful that the gay community will refuse to be fodder for these aims and they will distance themselves forcefully from this fringe element driving society to level of debasement that will destory most of what we value.

socratease

I see this as a bigger issue than just liberals trying to sexualize young children. This is just a continuation of the movement on the left to morph the public school system into one that molds young minds into having the proper ideological bent. (For a recent example, note the ideological litmus test the University of Minnesota School of Education is applying to potential teachers.) If right-wing Christian fundamentalists were doing the same thing to our public education system I would be equally outraged. That the left is doing so on a level so egregious that it outrages the vast majority is just a matter of degree.
Extending this further, this is another example of liberals compromising an existing influential institution to promote their own agenda, destroying that institution’s effectiveness in the process. Liberals don’t see that these institutions are influential because of the way they operate, but just that they are power structures they can arrogate and use for their own purposes. The fact that, in changing changing how these institutions work, they destroy their usefulness and the reason they are influential either never occurs to liberals or is of negligable concern to them. We see this in the institutions of universities, the courts, marriage, NGOs like the Ford Foundation or the Nobel Prize, the military, and (with climategate as an example) the sciences. Their handling of the economies of political regions where they gain control (like California) is yet another example. They truly are on a mission to kill the geese that lay golden eggs.

>>If right-wing Christian fundamentalists were doing the same thing to our public education system I would be equally outraged.>>

This is an interesting statement. It assumes a plan to change or manipulate the “public education system”, treating the system as a single whole unit. I think that’s the problem, rather than the particular belief system being advocated.
In fact, we have local school boards. The local school board is _elected_ by the people of the school district. In other words, the people approve of the choices being made by their local board, or they vote them out of office. At least in my state, you can recall an elected board member. The problem is when you have choices _forced_ on the local district by legal actions – legislation or lawsuits. So, for example, schools with strong Christian fundamentalist enrollees are prohibited from teaching Creationism. Now I have a problem with fundamental creationism, but if 98% of the people in a district want their children taught that, then I think it should be their right to have it taught. That said, I don’t want _any_ school district to be required to teach creationism if the local parents object to it, and there need to be other options for people in districts that _do_ teach it who object to having their children taught that particular belief structure.
In this case, however, the only options to avoid the homsexual agenda are charter schools and home schooling. Charter schools are also being resisted, and while home schooling isn’t as yet being restricted, my guess is that it will be soon. Gotta have all those little kids taught how to be _good_ little citizens. The problem is the unification of public school systems into one – almost federal – school system.

SADIE

California Junior High Principal Apologizes For Not Warning Parents About Pro-Homosexual Program for 8th Graders …

I can see that around puberty, kids who are homosexual may need some guidance about why they are different and what their place will be in the world. That is exactly what these books are NOT giving. They really seem to be recruiting tools that focus the whole existence on sexual acts. What a diminution of a human being.
Part of my reticence about gay marriage was my feeling that the activists seemed to think little about social norms that benefit children. As with feminism, the gay rights movement seemed to have allowed its lunatic fringe to speak for all. I didn’t realize how sick that fringe is.

Mike Devx

expat #25:
What a brilliantly short two paragraphs you wrote. To be so concise and clear is to have a gift (I wish I had).
> Part of my reticence about gay marriage was my feeling that the activists seemed to think little about social norms that benefit children.

They don’t think about benefits to children at all, let alone “think little”. I’ve been 100% clear in my mind on this for years. What you are seeing is a broad set of far-left groups that have banded together: To present a common, united frontal assault on all traditional values, with a particular focus of hatred for Christianity and Christian values. The mere fact of their silence on jihadist, fundamentalism Islam – and its profoundly deep hatred of women and gays – says everything you need to know about the motivations of these groups. Don’t be fooled. It hasn’t been about “equal rights” for years and years.

My personal opposition to the gay marriage movement is because it wasn’t really about gay marriage at all – it’s just a part of the assault on values. This is clear to me because most of these activists DESPISE straight marriage. They don’t want to be allowed to join into it because they revere the institution of marriage. Not when they hate and despise that institution.

> That is exactly what these books are NOT giving. They really seem to be recruiting tools that focus the whole existence on sexual acts. What a diminution of a human being.

That’s exactly the conclusion I came to after that experimentation period I had in 92-94. For me there were five sexual encounters over that period, which may not seem like a lot to some people, but since I have always been a cautious and deliberate person, that was for me – and I found them, as experiments without any deep love or commitment, to be soul-deadening. I knew it early on, but I “stuck with the program” for a couple of years until I walked away from the whole scene and have never had a moment’s regrets. What I see in these books is much of the same soul-dead outlook and results I saw then. To the extent that any of those books contain truth, those people in them are at risk of grievous psychological harm.

> As with feminism, the gay rights movement seemed to have allowed its lunatic fringe to speak for all. I didn’t realize how sick that fringe is.

When I finished scanning the material at Gateway Pundit, I felt psychologically battered and reeling. I didn’t realize I’d been numbed too. That was yesterday morning. I’m still thinking about it today and I’m still reeling. I didn’t realize, too, how sick this Kevin Jennings is, how sick his organization of his must be, how sick and twisted their supporters are. I’m still horrified; I think this may be another 9-11 moment for me. 9-11 woke me out of my cocoon belief that the world was safe and kind and all those groups who seemed to hate my country and me were simply misunderstood. No – they actively mean me and my country harm to the very core of their beings. For Kevin Jennings to preside over the approval of these books in this reading list for 7th-12th graders is such an act of shocking depravity that I cannot understand how he got ANY position within the Obama administration, let alone Safe Schools “Czar”. I call this another 9-11 moment for me because I believe I am going to have to accept that they are not merely wrongheaded; I am realizing over these few days just how very vicious, twisted and harmful these people and their groups are. I truly didn’t think it was possible – before yesterday.

Friend of USA

Thanks Deana,

ans as for homosexality; I do not have a problem with what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home BUT having said that … I think the gays/lesbians should have stayed in the closet,

Let me explain,

I do not want to know if the married heterosexual couple who live next door ( pardon my graphic language ) have anal sex or not, and I do not want to know if my 82 year old mother and my 87 year old father ( pardon my graphic language ) still have oral sex and I do not want to know if Obama or Michelle is usually on top or if they use sex toys…

I’m not against anything in the 3 examples above – but I just don’t want to know nor do I need to know about it!

I want these things to remain ” unmentioned”

Gays/lesbians should go back to a more low profile ” back in the closet” lifestyle

Some things should remain private. We know about them but we don’t talk about hem and this is fine.

The more gays/lesbians shove in our face shocking acts ( think of Adam Lambert’s performance on tv last week, grabbing the crotch of someone who may or ay not have been a transexual is counter productive to their cause )
and the more they walk with their genitals exposed in gay pride parades, the more they are hurting their cause.

I’m not homophobic, I just am uncomfortable with people – heterosexual or homosexual – exposing their sex life for the world to see.

Some things should reamin private or even in the closet.

Any of this making any sense to any of you?

Deana

Expat –
Absolutely.

I remember becoming quite hot under the collar when I was living in D.C. I had taken my car downtown, parrallel parked, and went to a museum. When I left the museum, the long, Carribean celebration parade was slowly going down the street where I had parked (yeah – no signs, nothing posted to warn innocent drivers). So I decided to sit and watch the parade because there was no way I could get my car out.

What I saw shocked me to the core. Over and over again, I saw teenagers and young adults “bumping and grinding” in the middle of the street!!!!! I’m not saying they were suggestive, I’m saying that the woman was in front, the man would come up behind her and and leave absolutely zero room for error on what they were trying to portray. Meanwhile, people from all over the world with kids under 10 were innocently wandering down the streets trying to take in Washington and they were confronted with this. Mind you, the people doing this were parade participants – not spectators. And it happened over and over and over.

When it was all said and done, I happened to look a couple of yards down the block and there was this precious little 3 year old who was shaking her bottom in an overtly sexual way. She was doing nothing wrong – she was just mimicking what she had seen. And her parents? They were laughing at her and encouraging her. It just made me sick.

I don’t care what people do behind closed doors. But, as you say, there are things that should remain private – not because someone should feel ashamed but because not every last thing in life needs to be carried out in public. There are things I don’t want to know about, don’t want to see, and don’t want children exposed to.

I just can’t believe that this is now going to be up for discussion. Even this upsets me: it’s as if these people who support this type of behavior are forcing us to talk about it. They believe we don’t want to because we are “prudes” or hypocritical but that isn’t it at all – more than anything, we just understand that there is a private sphere that must be honored in a healthy society.

I think Mike said something important in his last post – about this being something similar to a 9/11 reaction. Obviously, it isn’t quite that bad given that people didn’t die when Jennings and his group decided to recommend these books to children but I do feel quite strongly that a door has opened that will now not shut. Something has broken.

Sex is like killing people. One produces new life, along with birth, and the other ends it, along with death.

But if people want to make sex public and make it into a sort of public education program, then logically it must be balanced out by the knowledge of killing, for without the power to kill, sex would lack the balance necessary for consent. It’s just not healthy.

Which is why the most exploitative sexual educators are also the most reactive of proponents for gun control and ignorance. It’s hard to exploit children and brooder classes when they can fight for themselves well.

You’re not going to see many child molestors, if at all, being gung ho for educating children on how to kill adults at the same time they want to teach them sex. Death and life, the balance of a knife’s edge for healthy human interactions. It doesn’t mean you teach all knowledge of killing to children, for that would traumatize them, and the same is true for sex. But if you do, then you need balance otherwise the trauma won’t just traumatize, it’ll also make them helpless.

In our society, the Western society, we can talk about sex in a general fashion. And that’s accepted in mixed company. Talking about who you had sex with and the intimate details of likes and dislikes, however, is usually reserved to same sex groups if not private best friends. The same should be true with violence. Broadcasting it for all the world to see… is not particularly productive. The general category and description of sex is adequate for general education, just as the general description of violence is adequate for general education. Specific education, of course, requires personal training and that’s up to the individual to attempt.

Europe has tried to become ‘enlightened’ and hold American ‘prudes’ to account as if Europeans were the parent and we the children (or rather, Euros the hip children and we the old dodgering parents more like it), but they have only done so at the expense of an education on violence. Transferring public awareness from violence to sex is not something to be proud of. It’s also very dangerous for the average person of, say, London and the Uk.

<B> Any of this making any sense to any of you?</b>

It makes sense to me, of course. There are certain social barriers which serve to create a public and private space. This is very useful for an armed society. Just as I don’t want to hear about the intimate details of someone who’s been abused who is now trying to convert me to their ‘fashion’ or ‘angst’ using the story of their abuse, for it is too personal and I refuse to be guilt tripped into anything. Including my own death and exploitation. Just as I wouldn’t want to hear that, I also don’t want to hear threats of physical violence that tries to coerce me, nor do I wish to hear about the private sexual practices of people who believe that it’s somehow normal for me to do it their way. No, I prefer my way.

When violence, sex, abuse, and various other things are in the public sphere, then it’s okay to communicate them to others and speak about them. People do it all the time: it’s called gossip, aka the news. Some of it can be harmful, if one intends to use a person’s personal experiences to harm them (The Left vs Sarah Palin’s family), but generally if it is in the public sphere then it serves a public interest for people to discuss such things. Palin mentioned this dynamic with Obama’s birth certificate, saying that if Dems want to challenge Trig’s birth certificate, then certainly it’s legitimate for Obama if it is legitimate for Trig and Palin.

If people wish to convince others that something is good or bad, they can use what is in the public sphere to justify their arguments. It is unethical, however, to bring to public what is private simply to advance your own narcissistic political ideology, however. This includes whether the private matters are your own or those of another. You have no right to pull people into your own life any more than you have the right to pull other people’s lives apart for your own gain. The problem with Leftist agitators is their megalomaniacal and malignant narcissistic instinct that tells them that only they matter, all anyone else can be are puppets and inanimate objects. They are purposefully cruel and atrociously abusive, not to mention manipulative, lying, cunning, and lacking in empathy to rival serial killers and serial rapists.

For privacy reasons, if we wish to tell an example from our own second hand experience told to us through someone else’s primary experience, then we say what happened without attaching the person’s name to it. Psychologists can do this to make a point. And we often do so on the internet, given the requirements of anonymity. If the point matters, if the point once made can prevent others from suffering the same, then it is ethically justified. But it would not be justified had the name been released without consent and consideration for the negative ramifications. The Left often out people and justify it as being ‘justice’ because their cause is ‘just’. That’s not justice people, simply vengeance and jealousy.

Google Matt Sanchez Sake White for a more unrestricted commentary on the Left’s unethical and immoral machinations.

The public vs private sphere doesn’t matter as much, however, given the fact that the Leftist agitators are hypocritical play boys and gold diggers. They like the money. If it means setting up a child prostitution bordello, then that’s what it will take. They have nothing against it. They have nothing against one of the anointed, Polansky, hurting under aged girls. They have nothing against increasing sexual predation of students and kids. They have no problem with such. They get high off watching the abuse, like sadists, even.

Don’t be deluded into thinking the Left has integrity, morality, or ethics. They do not. When people purposefully and coercively pull your private life into the public sector, it isn’t for your own good. Nor is it the case that someone introduces their personal life details (John Edwards and his wife’s cancer) that this means they are pristinely pure. Both instances are manipulation methods designed by the Left to pull you into an environment in which you are not comfortable and cannot effectively fight well in given our social limitations. The Left, being more akin to serial killers than normal people, don’t have the same social limitations.

Don’t let the hypocrites get away with this. Ignoring it is not going to make things better.

<B>Specific education, of course, requires personal training and that’s up to the individual to attempt.</b>

Of course, that’s only true for violence, like gun training. It’s not true for sex. There is mandated sexual training and education in schools. But no mandated gun training or education about violence.

Btw, the Left’s Democrat bunny sex slaves always talk about how a gun is useful for nothing but killing. They’re perfectly fine with making sex into pleasure with abortion, however. They don’t mind that all an abortion does is to kill the unborn.

So it is not that the Democrat’s sex kittens are against killing, it is that they are against justified killing of those that are guilty of something.

And while they mandated enforced education on sex as ‘enlightened’, even though sex can lead to pregnancies and pregnancies can lead to abortions, they treat the ‘gun’ as an evil magical talisman that everybody, but their own goon squads, should be ignorant of. Even though the gun is designed to lead to killing, but without the pleasure output as sex. So sex that can lead to death is justified by the Left because they get an orgasm out of it, but guns are not because only their bodyguards need to have it, nobody else.

People may have noticed this about me, but I don’t just disagree with the Left. I hate the Left. I hate them, much as they hate guns. But for different reasons. I’ve always hated them. I was simply ignorant of where they were, what name they called themselves, and by which cause they shrouded their poisoned fangs with. They are vipers.

I gave Democrats a chance, on the basis that not all are Leftists. While that is still true, it’s very immaterial. Just as there are moderates in Islam, it won’t prevent me from striking against them simply because the moderates aren’t in control of anything. They’re just slaves of the real leaders, the strong extremists. The moderates are weak. They do not matter so long as the extremists are in power. In this case, one must destroy the village to save the village.

SADIE

Everyone has posted so eloquently and thoroughly in this thread. After reading all the posts, it occurred to me that the extreme tactics by Jennings, etc. are but a continuation of the Woodstock years when sexuality was on display and set to music, mud and mind bending drugs. Even in the decades prior to the 60’s there were ‘displays’ and experimentation but they were somewhat limited within the norms of the times.
Every generation stretches their morals (lack thereof) in a variety of ways. Most (some) of us remember that Elvis the Pelvis as he was known would not be shown below the waist on the Ed Sullivan Show…fast forward to John Travolta dancing and ‘bumping’. All the while the sexuality limits kept being pushed into the mainstream.
I know I’ve rambled on a bit here, but my point is that the elasticity of any culture can only be stretched so far before it breaks and begins to unwind like a scene from Caligula.When it was all said and done, I happened to look a couple of yards down the block and there was this precious little 3 year old who was shaking her bottom in an overtly sexual way. She was doing nothing wrong – she was just mimicking what she had seen. And her parents? They were laughing at her and encouraging her. It just made me sick.Deana … excellent point. If, heaven forbid, this little girl comes home with a STD or pregnant at 14 they will never have remembered that they encouraged her behavior.

mike devx: right on! I fully support your decision to remain celibate; that could not have been something arrived at easily or taken lightly.
I really don’t know about Obama. Someone else suggested jokingly that he’s really a Republican plant to ensure that the Democrats do not get elected for another 40 years or so. Well, he’s doing a damn fine job if that’s the case.
Seriously, someone needs to beat some sense into POTUS. The kind of stuff he’s pulling might work in Venezuela, but I highly doubt it would pass muster for long in the USA.

> mike devx: right on! I fully support your decision to remain celibate; that could not have been something arrived at easily or taken lightly.

Yes, I’m now commenting too much, but it is of interest to me. Apologies.
I appreciate your comment, gkong3. I never take decisions lightly – it is true, but I have to say, it *was* arrived at easily. As I said above, I knew after just a month or so that the whole scene was not for me. Yet I stuck with it for about two years. I was 30. I’d spent my whole adult life fighting it. My thoughts were: I had to understand this. I had to KNOW FOR SURE what this was all about. So I hung out around “the gay scene”, which basically means, bars, for two years. And I had a number (five) of encounters over those years. I talked to people, I hung out, I was propositioned, I went to house parties. I got drunk. I danced in my skivvies on the back porch with others – what exhibitionists we were! I am still ashamed. In the midst of one such “encounter” the two of us hung out in a public park and, well, “played” with each other. A copy came by and asked us to stop. Asked us! (This was Austin, as liberal as it gets in Texas.) To my credit, I was ashamed then – I thought “Yes, what exactly DO we think we’re up to here in this public park?” It wasn’t long after that that the experimentation period of two years ended.
Eventually I got to the point where there simply weren’t any questions remaining, and I walked away from it all. But my point to gkong3 would be is that I knew it wasn’t for me after just about a month; I kept it up for two years; but at the end of those two years, it actually was very, very – VERY – easy to walk away. I should have walked away years before. But in benefit, I knew myself quite well. I absolutely knew what was right. I’d shamed myself several times – as I indicated above – and I knew that. What is the problem, is that it took me so long to walk away from it. This was ten years before 9-11-2001, the moment I like to think of as my conservative awakening, so perhaps it’s not surprising it took me so long.

I’m unhappy about the shameful things. I’ve always been too deliberate in making decisions, perhaps, and I was quite the liberal in those days, too. So I don’t beat myself up too badly about it. Perhaps I ought to, more.

Mike Devx

Gads, one more comment, I’m sorry! But I didn’t address gkong3’s comment surrounding celibacy, and I meant to address it.

First of all, surrounding the Kevin Jenning’s pedophilia and teenage boys-men sex issue: He definitely advocates sex between men and teenage boys. I have zero psychological and sexual interest in immaturity. Maybe I should thank God for that, for I consider such interest terrible. I haven’t found a single person even in their mid-twenties interesting (once they open their mouths and talk for a while). And frankly, I’m headed towards my fifties these days, and a mature twenty-three year old should be interested… in other young twenty-somethings, not in me. (I don’t quite get sixty year old men hanging out with twenty year old bombshells either – I consider it rank immaturity and utterly embarrassing on the part of the men.) I also have a complete 100% moral objection to adults having sex with children – by which I include teenagers. Let the teenagers experiment with each other as they figure out the hormone game. I would say to such an “adult” : As an adult, you have zero business getting involved. Why aren’t you having sex with other adults? YOU have a deep seated problem you’re not addressing.

That is why several posts above, I called Kevin Jennings, and his organization, and those who support it, sick and twisted. They’re adults, clearly using their organization to advocate for sex between adult men and teenage boys, and they are hypersexualizing the kids’ entire environment, and they’re doing it for their own purposes. It *is* sick, and it is twisted.

On to celibacy itself:
I’m celibate by choice, but only in a condition I call “permanent impermanent”. I don’t want to take credit for something that isn’t true. I’ve been deeply in love three times, but all three were unrequited and never involved sex. I’ve been the one loved who couldn’t return it, twice, too, and that’s incredibly difficult to handle, too. How this relates to celibacy: If ever I do fall in love and it is returned, the deep long-lasting commitment is what I require for the sex to not be “soul-dead”, and should sex enter the picture, celibacy shall leave the picture. So my celibacy is not a moral choice that is eternal in the Catholic avoidance of sin sense. That’s just my take on it, and I offer no apologies for that. I’m not sure such MUTUAL deep emotional commitment must lead to sex, but I have to say, it would be likely to, I think, wouldn’t it? But it would be private, and no one else’s business.

Friend of USA

” […]9-11-2001, the moment I like to think of as my conservative awakening…” ( said Mike Devx )

9/11 WAS my conservative awakening too!

Before that I did not care about politics and I was what I would call ” politically illiterate” I did not watch TV news,I did not read articles on politics…so guess to wich side I leaned?

THE LEFT!

Yes I was ignorant of politics and my natural reflex was to vote Liberal…anyone surprised?

Then 9/11 happened and it really really affected me deeply (even if I am a not an American but a French Canadian.)

So I began to read and read and what struck me was that pretty much every main stream source of info was pro-liberal and sublty ( or not so subtly ) anti-USA, anti-capitalism, anti-Conservative, et cetera…

Then I discovered blogs and various sites that tell the whole story ( or both sides of the story unlike the MSM ) and I finally realized within a few months that I was much more a conservative than a liberal ( although I do not agree with everything conservative, I consider myself a conservative ).

9/11 was definitely what woke me up to reality; the MSM is a propaganda machine for the left and I – as most people – was being ” softly” brainwashed by the MSM consensus on liberalism being the superior ideology… when in reality liberalism is a “dark force” ( for lack of a better word/expression) that is slowly destructing Western civilization/Capitalism by a thousand cuts and that wants more and more power and want to take awya more and more of our liberty.

Yes 9/11 was my conservative awakenig.

And Climate gate only reinforces my bad opinion of the left; they are more corrupted than we can even imagine; they cheat, they lie, they doctor data, they use dirty tricks to suppress dissent, then they have their accomplice the MSM do the soft brain washing and/or damage control and so on and so forth.

You’d have to put a gun to my head for me to vote liberal again.

Sorry for the early morning rant…

SADIE

On awakenings…
“Perhaps Communists had wormed their way so deeply into our government on both the working and planning levels that they were able to exercise an inordinate degree of power in shaping the course of America in the dangerous postwar era.
I could not help wondering and worrying whether we were faced with open enemies across the conference table and hidden enemies who sat with us in our most secret councils.” – General Mark Clark (1896-1984) American general during World War II and the Korean War
Friend of USA – no need to apologize for rant – I sometimes have mine while frothing at the mouth at all hours of the day.

An excellent post, and excellent comments!
Late to the party, but….my comment:
The just about universal sentiment in the nation is child abusers, of any age need to be culled from society by the fastest means available, maybe even at arrest time.
That’s one side of the issue.
This story is the other: The demand to visualize children, and not call it abuse. If a non-school employee managed to pass such material to a minor, it does result in felony arrests.
All of a sudden, when provided at school, it becomes “education.”
We’re lost, and we wonder why we are losing jobs to nations overseas? The education system has more attributes of a psychology lab than of a system cultivate effective, functional, working, creating people for the good of the over all economic health and welfare of the citizens as a whole. We’re just getting overseuxalized people, who demand to feel good at all times, to include sexual gratification as a right of some sort. Who knows…maybe they lawyers want this too, in order to get more billable hours for sexual harassment cases and sex offenders…
Summing it up: Sexual Schizophrenia elevated to a Federal Government level.
“H/T” to Hollywood, Madison Avenue and the hippies from the 60/70s era, who decided it was all about “if it feels good, do it.”
Sorry…cynicism is a creeping notion these in these days of Obama.

Mike Devx

xformed #42, well said!
I’ve been thinking more about why I’m so upset. It’s not that these books exist – people are free to produce whatever trash they wish. It’s that these books are on the recommended reading list for kids in 7th-12th grades, put there by Kevin Jennings and his ilk.

A recommended reading list. Think about its nature for a moment. Such a list is “normative”, meaning, it is intended for the average student in 7th-12th grade. That’s your basic 9th or 10th grade student in Peoria, Illinois. Kevin Jennings wants YOUR DAUGHTER reading this horrifying crap.

That reading list might be useful for the delinquent, hard-knocks on-the-streets alternative-school kid, hopelessly mired in trouble and without a future. To reach those kids, you speak a tough language, you run a tough classroom, you do all sorts of things you would never do in a normal classroom. To reach the unreachable. Emergency intervention. And I mean, EMERGENCY. Way out on the bounds.

But they are the 0.1% of students. They are not the NORM. They are the emergency. You do not put together a national reading list for them. The national reading list is targeted to the average, utterly normal student. I don’t know about you, but the average 9th or 10th grader has no business reading even one paragraph of those Kevin Jennings-selected books.

Those books – full of the degenerate, lurid, in-the-gutter writings of the near-soul-dead… no sane parent or adminstrator should want those pornographic, amoral, gutter scribblings anywhere near the children under their care. Yet you have to understand that Kevin Jennings views those writings as absolutely NORMAL and absolutely appropriate for your daughter, or your son, in 9th or 10th grade. As a means of spreading TOLERANCE. For God’s sake, how outrageous must your everyday thoughts be, to consider such material normal for your average 9th grader to read???

That’s why Kevin Jennings must go.

And that brings me to the material distributed at a national GLSEN conference. (GLSEN is Kevin Jenning’s founding group. That also produced that reading list.)

Specifically, the READING MATERIAL distributed at that conference. Again I ask you to consider: What is the nature of the reading material that you distribute at a conference? Again, it is the material that you consider normative. It’s the material you want to “speak for you”, to represent you. The material you aim to present as your average teaching material.

Here is one such normative passage from a brochure at that conference. Aimed at the average student again, I remind you!

“No Dookie On Your Noodle! Nobody knows better than queer men that sh*t happens. It’s just a fact of life…and butts*x. While there are steps to take to avoid a mess, they’re not always practical for the boy on the go. Condoms allow you a certain freedom that can be a great selling point if you’re cruising the park and don’t want stray spunk on your new polyester shirt…”

Again, the monstrous problem is not the material itself. It’s that Kevin Jennings is pushing it on all of your sons and daughters, as appropriate and normative material for them. That’s the monstrous part of it, not merely that the material exists, perhaps as emergency intervention for the hard-bitten lost soul who has been living out on the streets among the drug-ridden homeless for five years, utterly lost. (And I’m not saying that this crap would succeed with them either – just that it’s the ONLY POSSIBLE excuse for its existence.) No, Kevin Jennings wants your sons and your daughters – straight or gay, but most importantly, normal in every way – to be the target of this inexcusable and horrifying material.

And that is why … HE… MUST… GO. PERIOD.

BrianE

This issue can’t go to the back burner.

With the name Safe Schools Czar, my thoughts initially went to gangs. Even in our rural community gangs are a serious problem.

Who would have thought Safe Schools mean schools safe to practice bazaar and potentially dangerous deviant sexual techniques. About the only thing missing from the curriculum is bestiality.

Not only must Kevin Jennings go, GSLEN must be repudiated and a re-evaluation by rational folks of what should constitute proper sex education needs to be begun. And not by “educators”. This material is akin to rape of the mind.

suek

>>Not only must Kevin Jennings go, GSLEN must be repudiated and a re-evaluation by rational folks of what should constitute proper sex education needs to be begun.>>

The problem, Brian, is that our repudiation and evaluation is based on what we consider “right”. For most of us, this is based on some form of religious principle. If not on religious principles, then exactly _what_ principles should guide us?
But…we also have those pushing for the removal of religion in any form from governmental actions – in any form. Now you can clearly see where the strength of need for a “separation of church and state” movement intends to direct us. If it is your moral principle that determines that such sexual material is improper for children, why should _your_ moral principle be of greater weight than Jennings? _What_ are our basic principles on which we determine laws? Is it simply the majority? A true democracy? Or _are_ there basic Judeo-Christian principles that establish the underlying principles on which our laws are founded, and which need to be destroyed in order to establish the State as the single determinant of right and wrong?

I know my answer.

And by the way – this is the reason for the destruction of marriage – that is, removing the education and inculcation of principles from the control of the family. So, this give them a “twofer”…gay marriage contributes to the destruction of marriage, and establishing the perversion in the schools contributes to the increase in the number of gays, which … ad infinitum.

By the way #2…Tiger Woods is now being accused of being a “sexual addict”. IMO, _all_ men are sexual addicts – that’s why control of sexuality is one of the commandments. Maybe two of the commandments, is you consider “coveting” as also sexual in nature. The funny thing here is that today’s society generally and Liberals in particular, consider sexual liberation to be a “good” thing…but if someone follows that idea in their actions, then s/he’s a “sexual addict”. So…you should not be a sexual addict, but religious prohibitions against free sex are repressive.

I just _love_ the left…!!! They sure don’t let a little thing like consistency bother them, do they!